Fulham 1-4 Wolves: Verdict Thread

[Paddingtonwolf]

Hmmm. He is supposed to be a scoring forward. So his nuts and bolts are goals. And his record is, apart from against us, dropping below pretty adequate, and into, really a bit of a bag of shit.

 

[GLASGOWOLF]

He's talking Iwobi and Smith Rowe, one of which nobody on here said was shit, Glasgo has just made it up to have one of his post match pissed rants. The only negative comments were the injury concerns versus the salary/transfer fee.

Actually when we were linked with both they were labelled not good enough/Shit.

Just like yesterdays team was labelled not a chance on here.

before Saints game I said I did not see us losing up to the West Ham Game (I did not expext back to back wins, I expected 4 points). When I said that it triggered another pile on, just has the comment about the ridiculous he is not good enough comments, Fucking hell this manager does not know what he is doing this team will get battered.

 

[leedswolf]

Actually when we were linked with both they were labelled not good enough/Shit.

The discussion around ESR was about his fee (£30m) and fitness. Not that he was shit.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Precisely

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Actually when we were linked with both they were labelled not good enough/Shit.

Just like yesterdays team was labelled not a chance on here.

Iwobi yes. Smith Rowe absolutely not

 

[Carsy]

Some of us watch more than just wolves games.

I never said he was brilliant, i said and it happens here all the time, players get mentioned, on here he gets a big NO HE Is FUCKING SHIT.

And two of those players are now playing in a Team everyone here has said over the last week are better than us.

I was just pointing out this place is not the fountain of Knowledge some think it is.

As a team, yes. Individually, no.

Looking at the starting 11s yesterday on ability you would 100% had 4 wolves players as certs and could argue another 4/5.

Isn’t just about ability, about how you set up, tactics, etc.

I wouldn’t have iwobi in our team based on ability, for example.

Someone mentioned there isn’t probably a lot between teams like 8th - 17th and they’re probably right. But of luck, momentum etc plays a big part.

No it’s not a fountain of knowledge, it’s a forum, filled with people’s opinions who follow wolves. If every time a player was linked and everyone just went ‘ok, cool, not seen the player in 20+ games so can’t have an opinion then it would be a very dull place

 

[Carsy]

Actually when we were linked with both they were labelled not good enough/Shit.

Just like yesterdays team was labelled not a chance on here.

before Saints game I said I did not see us losing up to the West Ham Game (I did not expext back to back wins, I expected 4 points). When I said that it triggered another pile on, just has the comment about the ridiculous he is not good enough comments, Fucking hell this manager does not know what he is doing this team will get battered.

Can’t remember many, if any saying smith rowe was shit? Maybe be wrong there. I’ve always thought he was a decent player, but injuries, and 30m seemed abit steep for me.

Ironically did nothing yesterday. Doesn’t make him a bad player ofcourse,

 

[Carsy]

Actually when we were linked with both they were labelled not good enough/Shit.

Just like yesterdays team was labelled not a chance on here.

before Saints game I said I did not see us losing up to the West Ham Game (I did not expext back to back wins, I expected 4 points). When I said that it triggered another pile on, just has the comment about the ridiculous he is not good enough comments, Fucking hell this manager does not know what he is doing this team will get battered.

I thought it was extremely wishful thinking. However I’m delighted you have been proven correct, as I think every wolves fan is

 

[Alan]

"<Player> scored on us, why didn't we buy them??" is such a lazy argument.

 

[HanDoJin]

My issue with players being sold by Arsenal et al is the insane prices. ~30m for Smith Rowe just because he plays for a top 4 club??

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Font is traditionally the Americanisation spelling of fount, the latter being the typical British English spelling. Font, fount and fountain of knowledge can all correctly be used interchangeably as all derive from the Latin word fonte meaning fountain.

font is a reference to a typeface or typographical letter style, such as univers, or futura or whatever.
Used all over the advertising and printing world.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I don't think we've ever even been linked with Iwobi, this discussion makes no sense.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

font is a reference to a typeface or typographical letter style, such as univers, or futura or whatever.
Used all over the advertising and printing world.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re taking the piss.

 

[Alan]

font is a reference to a typeface or typographical letter style, such as univers, or futura or whatever.
Used all over the advertising and printing world.

Homographs are a bitch ay